RE: MKRESOURCE vs. MKACTIVITY and MKWORKSPACE

From: Clemm, Geoff (gclemm@Rational.Com)
Date: Sat, Apr 15 2000

  • Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/17/00 (Monday) 2-3pmEST"

    Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC027A1462@chef.lex.rational.com>
    From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
    To: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
    Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:11:42 -0400
    Subject: RE: MKRESOURCE vs. MKACTIVITY and MKWORKSPACE
    
    I have received no objections to my proposal to replace
    MKRESOURCE with MKACTIVITY and MKWORKSPACE, so I will
    go ahead and make this change in the next revision of
    the protocol.  I've enclosed the original message giving
    the rationale for this change.
    
    Cheers,
    Geoff
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 11:08 AM
    To: DeltaV (E-mail)
    Subject: MKRESOURCE vs. MKACTIVITY and MKWORKSPACE
    
    
    The redirect reference design team decided to go with a
    MKREF method instead of using a generic MKRESOURCE method,
    because the semantics of MKRESOURCE is so heavily
    depedent on what type of resource is being created.
    
    I believe the same reasoning applies even more strongly
    to the new versioning resource types, so I propose that
    we replace the generic MKRESOURCE method in the versioning
    protocol with MKACTIVITY and MKWORKSPACE methods (and for
    those of you with long memories, yes, I was in fact the one
    lobbying the loudest for a generic MKxxx method way back
    when ... :-).
    
    The argument has also been made that a generic MKRESOURCE
    method is not compatible with existing extensibility 
    mechanisms in commonly used Web servers such as Apache and IIS.
    I don't thing this should be an overriding consideration,
    but it should be factored in.
    
    Comments?
    
    Cheers,
    Geoff